On e of my favourite theological books is The Oecumenical Documents of the
Faith first published in 1899 and gives all the creeds , Chalcedonian
definition, Tome of leo etc. Loads pn appendices ot the creed of nicea and
the filioque (and the Son).

The least important thing is the filioque and the most important is to have
a full blooded trinitarianism which is a soteriological issue not
ontological and this is where Arianism falls down, pace Athanasius. I.e.
Jesus was God and Man so man could be redeemed or "godified" . Remember the
Orthodox talk of the theosis of Christians being "deified" which is of
course foreign to Christans of the Western tradition be they RC anglciasn,
reformed or fundamentalists.
It even has the arian Creed of the Apostolicx Constitutions which is in the
same format as the "Nicene Creed" but leaves out God from God Light from
Light true God from true God ( I translate from the original or rather that
recieved from Eusebius and Athanasius.)

I can never understand why some have problems either with the Nicene(const)
creed or the Chalcedonian defintion as I see that they mark out where the
best christian grazing is within.

I think the ASA summary is fine . It is a definition for Christians who have
thought about their faith not an evangelsitic statement.

> Although several posts have alluded to it, it may help to state exactly
what the difference is between eastern (Orthodox) and western (Roman
Catholic/Protestant) versions.
>
> Originally, the Spirit was described as proceeding from the Father. In
response to a particular heresy, the western churches changed this to
proceeding from the Father and the Son. However, this was done without a
formal church council and with no input from the Orthodox church. Thus, to
the Orthodox the western version is improperly ammended, whereas the western
churches saw the Orthodox version as omitting an important phrase.
>
> As far as I know, there is no objection to the concept that the Spirit
proceeds from the Son. Conversely, the original does not say He does not
proceed fom the Son. Thus, I do not think there is much theological import
to the choice of version.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
>